I am new to the forum and thoroughly enjoying reading the posts both old and new.There is a lot of debate about dominance theory in the training world and I'm interested in all opinions whether they reflect mine own opinion or not.

My opinion is that this type of theory simply doesn't work on many levels. Firstly it relies on all dogs being wired as meglomaniacs which they are not,I firmly believe they do not plan their days around running a house or the world! I believe that the relationship between dog and owner is exactly that a relationship, and both are in control and responsible for how that relationship works. Which would undoubtedly lead to some relationship mismatches in turn leading to issues. I have removed dogs from owners homes and rehomed the dog to a more appropriate owner many times and discussed with the owner a suitable breed/type of dog for them in the future.

Yet I can see that if we have submissive dogs then surely we must have dominant dogs as well.So do these dominant characters eventually "takeover" the home due to a weak owner or an inexperienced owner? Or is this simply a misuse of the physics rule that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction?

I do see "strong" characters in dogs with what I see as a weaker human and yes the dog rules the roost, so control must be reclaimed. I use basic training and willuse NILIf if I believe it's needed if the dog and owner can handle it. Usually what happens though is that the dog works beautifullyforme and falls in love with me in 5 minutes, but I believe thats down to my ability as a trainer in showing the dog what I want and what the dog gets for compliance. TIMING!!  

But I have seen cases where dominance theory has "worked", in my belief it has simply been a case of a human has finally stepped up to the plate and applied the much missing rules!! That dominance theory works as it makes the human half of the realtionship be responsible for themselves!! I also believe that people adore wolves and like the idea of taming a "WILD BEAST".

So tell me people how you feel about it? Fact or fiction? And no links to be posted just honest opinions or experiences posted as I believe it's debate and our ability to hear people that makes us grow.

To be brutally honest I don't think you really CAN have varying opinions about something that has been proved scientifically to NOT be true. :) To me it seems a bit like asking if anyone still thinks the earth is flat, because it looks like it is. ;)

Complete fiction.  There are so many holes in the theory it may as well not be there and as Goldmali rightly says, is is known scientifically to be rubbish, not just by opinion :-)

The new book that's out - In Defense of Dogs - mentions it (not read it fully but read snippets online) - the author points out that not only is dominance theory based on the behaviour of an irrelevant species and social situation (the original theory being derived from observations of a captive wolf pack, being made up of unrelated inviduals whereas a wild wolf pack is a family unit; and on top of that, feral dogs behave differently from both captive and wild wolves), but the behaviour that is being studied has changed too much since dogs were first domesticated to be of any use anyway, because human persecution of wolves has altered their behaviour for survival.

In short, it's a load of crock - nothing it was ever based on has any relevance to dogs whatsoever, and the people who invented it got it wrong anyway - they misinterpreted submissive wolves voluntarily rolling onto their backs as the 'dominant' wolves forcibly rolling them (they don't, that is purely an act of intent to kill).

I suspect the only reason it's still holding on to owners and trainers today is to do with ourselves, not the dogs - humans like heirarchical explanations and see them everywhere (I've seen everything from dogs, horses, cats and even degus described as being dominant to their owners!), and sadly as a species we are very aggressive so any system that tells us we can control our dogs by being the leader and doing it by force (as traditional dominance training does) is going to be popular.  Thankfully large numbers of us have gotten past that but you only have to look at the wars waging around the world, racism etc to see that it is still very much a part of our species as a whole.

Ok interesting, science or not,it still persists, any other opinions?

On the science point of view, things can change what was proven one day can be disproved the next.

Totally agree that most of it is to do with our genetics and how violent as a species we can be, but can we have submissive dogs if we can't have dominant dogs? Or are we using the wrong descriptive terms?

> Yet I can see that if we have submissive dogs then surely we must have dominant dogs as well.So do these dominant characters eventually "takeover" the home due to a weak owner or an inexperienced owner? Or is this simply a misuse of the physics rule that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction?
>

My dog is a rather strong-willed chap. He knows he is big and strong and would use his size and weight to get what he wants.
For example he LOVES food, he knows he is not allowed to steal food from us, so will not (99.9& of the time!) it took a lot of training, not dominating him to teach him this ;) , however, if somebody he didn't know were to sit in my house and try to eat, he would try to steal thier food if I was not around (being such a big, strong boy, he would most likely succeed).

Eating before him does not make him think we are in charge, making him wait for me to walk through a door before him does not make him think I am incharge, it only makes him think he has to wait for me to go through first.

It does make me smile when i meet other dog walkers, I sound like I treat my dog very softly, most commands said in a 'baby'voice, other people are being stern and getting no co-operation from thier dogs atall. My huge chap is not interested in any dominance theory, he's interested in 'whats in it for HIM' - if something is worth his while = he'll do it. To me that says reward-based training carries more weight and is far more effective than any programme that tells you to keep the dog off the furniture and pretend to eat out of it's bowl :)

NILF may be said to be about the dominance theory, but if people who are struggling, finaly use the NILF approach, in a way they are just getting the dog to follow commands in order to get a reward - it's reward based training in general life rather than for set commands. NILF may tell you to get the dog to sit before putting it's food down - that is training with reward, or to perform a trick before getting petted - training with reward.

I don't use the word submissive when looking at a dog/human relationship.  I do think it exists to a degree between dogs though.

With people, I say that a dog is giving off appeasement signals - it's not trying to show that it's lower down the ladder than you, but rather that it's worried and stressed about something so it's trying to show you that and show you it's not a threat, it doesn't want to upset you.

Really interesting points of view. Like the appeassement signals bit totally agree with you, "he knows he's done wrong he looks gulity" how many times have you heard that one?

Love the mastiff simply wanting to know whats in it for him? I'm just the same, so totally get him!!

So is it a case of really the dominance theory has had sway for so long because on some level it has worked? Must have in lots of cases or wouldn't still be discussed or followed or on TV. So how has it worked? Has it given the owners who aren't so capable or experienced the direction they needed? As far as I can tell when you break dominance down it boils down to constant repetition of a set of criteria, called training where I come from. Door ways have featured I believe as it'sa common issue and boils down to safety. Eating before your dog just baffles me, I have days where luch is non existent and dinner is bloomin' late!! Dogs are fed though regardless. Does eating before yourdogs simply produce dogs that beg?

Bear with me some of this is tongue in cheek, I'm just interested in a theory that is outmoded and supposedly doesn't work,yet has gained so many followers and has done for years and we just can't seem to get away from it. It figures on virtually every dog forum there is. So has it to some extent worked to gain such a hold in training?

So is it a case of really the dominance theory has had sway for so long because on some level it has worked? Must have in lots of cases or wouldn't still be discussed or followed or on TV. So how has it worked?

In a nutshell it is bullying. Virtually all training methods work, at least for a while. But it's so much better to get your dog to do what it is told because they ENJOY it and get something nice out of it, rather than because they feel they have to and are scared not to.

> 'm just interested in a theory that is outmoded and supposedly doesn't work,yet has gained so many followers and has done for years and we just can't seem to get away from it. It figures on virtually every dog forum there is. So has it to some extent worked to gain such a hold in training?

I don't think it really has worked. People may get on fine with bullying a puppy in an attempt to stop it 'dominating' them, but why do so many dogs end up in shelter through thier behaviour where the owners simply can not cope (thinking of 'teenage' dogs here)? Is it becasue they have spent thier time trying to 'dominate' thier dog instead of actually training it?

I have a neighbour that has thankfully just taken thier dog back to the rescue they had got it from several months ago. The poor dog was completely mis-understood. He suffered from seperation anxiety, we could hear him barking non-stop whenever he was left - for hours on end sometimes, they had been told by many neighbours about the noise but they did nothing other than said 'he'll learn'.

I was walking with one of them with thier dog (and Buster), thier dog lunged at a passing child, they yanked it back with it's lead and slapped it around the face, it snapped at them - they hit it harder, the dog cowered and then 'behaved' it self. Trying to explain why hitting was no good was like talking to a brick wall :(
I've seen them in the garden with it - the dog barking (it would bark at everything), they would shout, very angrily, for it to go inside, it would ignore them, so they would chase it around the garden, hand raised, thretening to give it a slap.
I've seen them let thier kids play with the dog (2yr old & 3yr old), pulling it around, chasing it - the parents not saying a word.
The dog finally, snapped at one of the kids (I think the dog has patience, I'd have bitten the little brats myself long before now!) so now it has been sent back.

They have tried to dominate the dog through force and bullying since they had it, they made a little bit of progress with frightening it into not barking so much in the garden, but not enough progress to live with it.
If they had trained the dog, instead of trying to dominate it, it would've been a different story - the dog would have known how it was expected to behave.

I think people are lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that if you donimate a dog and DO get some results that the dog 'respects' you, when it couldn't be further form the truth - anybody that bullies/'dominates' a dog will have NO respect from the dog, only fear, so it's only a matter of time before unwanted things start to happen.

Reward-based trainnig, may not have such an apparent 'quick fix', but it also builds up trust and respect, making for a much better relationship between dog & owner :)

Ignorance is bliss for those that want a quick fix and can't be bothered to put in all the work that training a dog requires.

> But it's so much better to get your dog to do what it is told because they ENJOY it and get something nice out of it, rather than because they feel they have to and are scared not to.

LOL, now why couldn't I have managed to do a perfect little summary like that, instead of my huge, silly waffling post!

I totally agree with Goldmali :)

> Ignorance is bliss for those that want a quick fix and can't be bothered to put in all the work that training a dog requires

I agree with you, but I think the problem also lies in that many people behave in a 'dominating' way with others including their own children. You see it in families, the work place even the way people even speak to others, so when it comes to their dogs they haven't got the ability or understanding that dominating a dog and supposedly showing it who's the top dog isn't going to work.

> I agree with you, but I think the problem also lies in that many people behave in a 'dominating' way with others including their own children. You see it in families, the work place even the way people even speak to others, so when it comes to their dogs they haven't got the ability or understanding that dominating a dog and supposedly showing it who's the top dog isn't going to work.

Very true.  And aggression is addictive - there was a study on that a few years ago, I remember it from my dog behaviour course although the study was on people IIRC.  So even when someone is interested in changing their approach it can be very hard and for some people, it is simply not possible because they are so hooked on the harsh, bullying, aggressive approach.

There is a lot of debate about dominance theory in the training world and I'm interested in all opinions whether they reflect mine own opinion or not

Hi, I couldn't help notice this. The dominance theory & dominance reduction programs were never a general concept used or mentioned by either trainers or pet owners.

It goes back to the begining of commercial development of the pet dog training industry in the very late 80's early to mid 90's & was confined only to those who were trying to develop pet dog training as a viable, nationwide commercial service industry.

The originator was a guy named John Fisher & he was working on development of the industry fairly closley with somone called John Rogerson. John Fisher was the one who creatyed the 'Dominance Theory' & then started to market his 'Dominance Reduction Program'.

John Rogerson was doing the same by mid 90's & tried promoting to a mass market by writing a book called 'The Dominat Dog' & and made a video of the same name.

From the mid 90's  the market was developed further the founding of the organisation called APDT (still in existance) more pet owners were attending APDT pet dog training classes around UK & and they spread the dominance theory amongst others & maybe still do, I don't know.

As far as there ever being a general notion or regular common use of the words/concepts 'Dominance theory' or 'Dominace Reduction Program(s)' amongst either non pet dog trainers or the general population of pet dog owners, well, there never was.

It was simply confined to the small numbers who are exposed to those originating source classes & trainers. So please, when quoting these theories make it clear of the context which is nothing more than small groups of people, somehow or other tied in to commercial dog training & talking about this dominance theory thing which was nothing more than putting a name/label to something and then marketing it to some pet owners. It was/is never the general population of trainers or pet dog owners who use or are otherwise exposed to these things. Hope that gives some insight & context into it.

You can still buy John Rogersons video & book.

APBC Publication, 'The Dominant Dog'
http://www.amazon.com/Dominant-Dog-John-Rogerson/dp/B0012AJPTO

John Fisher, 'Dominance Reduction Program'
John Fisher was working particularly with the so called "Dominance Reduction Programmes" for dogs, and if you are not interested in dogs or don't like them much, I would suggest you still listen carefully
http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2008/01/harmony-program-energy-healing-for.html

I am sure you find the relevant study below of interest. Its the largets study of its kind ever done on territorial aggression in dogs & it uses the term dominance, they intend it to mean the dog does what it wants when it wants becuase its not obedience trained to do other wise (part of their conclusions). The numbers of dogs involved are huge compared to any other study ever done 711 ordinary dogs picked at random across 5 Spanish cites.

Full PDF
http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/javaa/2009/1412-1418.pdf

> As far as there ever being a general notion or regular common use of the words/concepts 'Dominance theory' or 'Dominace Reduction Program(s)' amongst either non pet dog trainers or the general population of pet dog owners, well, there never was.

I'm maybe reading this wrong but IME, the concept of dominance is very much pervasive in all areas of dog training and ownership (more's the pity), including trainers of non-pet dogs (i.e. military, perhaps not assistance dogs although I've heard of questionable techniques being used on guide dogs that could be perceived as dominance-based methods).  I hear pet dog owners referring to dogs as dominant every week, sometimes daily.  They are maybe not aware of the theory as a whole but the concept of dogs taking over is rife, even today.

Dominance reduction programs I don't hear mentioned much using those words but I hear plenty of owners talking about taking their dogs down a peg, being the alpha, pack leadership etc etc.  They may not know the terminology but they know the idea.

It goes back to the begining of commercial development of the pet dog training industry in the very late 80's early to mid 90's & was confined only to those who were trying to develop pet dog training as a viable, nationwide commercial service industry.

The training methods were around way before then. In fact, when I first attended a dog training class in 1981 I was told then that the NEW way of thinking was to train your dog with treats and praise. :)

LOL, now why couldn't I have managed to do a perfect little summary like that, instead of my huge, silly waffling post!

No yours was very interesting (and worrying) indeed.

Dominance theory is too simplistic - my dog is a working sheepdog and hence she has a strong tendency to manipulate and control - not dominate - but people still say things like 'you are not assertive enough' and 'I would have rolled her over on her back and held her there' (after she snapped at me) It is really upsetting because I know my dog better than anyone else and dominant is a word that would never describe her.  Stubborn yes!  She is a very wary dog, nervous of a lot of situations.  If people read this as dominance it is a big big mistake. 

Interesting opinions and as for the John Fisher/Rogerson post.I have been on many of John Rogerson's courses and pack theory is never mentioned but he has a very good way of looking at life from a dog'spoint of view and discusses removing human emotions from situations.

I hate any sort of al[ha roll method as it never works as far as I can see.Dogs can play dead too!! And what happens when they weigh more than me?? Be like riding a bucking bronco!! It just amazes me that this theory is still with us, whether we like violence or not.

Such a shame to hear about the rescue dog,but I do feel people seem to think rescue dogs come with gratitude built in. Rescued from what to what is a fave of mine. Been to many houses where I'd have bitten the kids if I'd lived there. I can remember a case with a collie where 4 kids literally ran amock mother must have been on drugs of the presrciption type to survive the day and also judging by her complete lack of response when the kids were in danger. For example little girl had her face right in the dogs face,dog was lip curling and gently growling.my reaction was to get kid out of there, mum's reaction was to roll her eyes and tell other kids to set the table!!!! AAArrgghhhhh!!!! Was it any wonder the dog was steam chasing?

My collies are all from working stock and several have worked sheep for fun,it's a partnership and sometimes you need a strong dog to move some sheep,something that can use it's brain and ignore you if it see's a better way or can see a sheep about to be naughty. Means that as pet dogs they can hard work and don't suit everyone as they can manipulate people easily.

A MUST read is Barry Eaton's "Dominance, Fact or Fiction."  he dispels so many myths about
so-called "dominance," which is a word that is bandied around by too many behaviourists and trainers.

Only a small book, but with big information.
http://news.crosskeysbooks.com/2009/07/dominance-fact-or-fiction-by-barry-eaton/

Thanks for all the opinions, nice to get feedback on this as I think this is going to be around for sometime yet. Even if we do all hate it!!

And I will defo look up the book by Barry Eaton,probably in my library already knowing me, I have so many books and so little time!!

 

There is a lot of debate about dominance theory in the training world

No not really, there never was a general 'dominance theory' which most people spouted, quoted or talked amongst themselves about and what many people these days claim was a commonly held belief or general definition of some set principles.

What there was & maybe still is around is that 2 commercial trainers, John Fisher, founder of APDT, & John Rogerson, founder of APBC, created a sort of training program which pet owners could commonly, nationwide, identify, he called 'The Dominance Reduction Program', remember this was at a time (early to mid 90's) when commercial training in the UK was not a widespread well paying, commercial industry, so that whole dominance 'concept' was created more as a 'brand identification' & with higher training rates started to grow.

He had a colleague who was also trying to make dog training a commercially viable industry, his name was John Rogerson, he wrote a book called The Dominant Dog & a video of the same name, you can find plenty about the John Fisher & John Rogersons dominance theory if you google, well in fact your talking about the John Fisher & John Rogerson  theory here, but as far their theory goes that's all it was, certainly not a general thing, just pet owners were exposed to it through their training classes.

1. APDT John Fisher -
"Dominance reduction program"
Dog names, health, and news!: The Harmony Program - Energy Healing For Animals

2. APBC Publication - John Rogerson
The Dominant Dog
Amazon.com: The Dominant Dog: John Rogerson: Video

> 1. APDT John Fisher -
> "Dominance reduction program"
> Dog names, health, and news!: The Harmony Program - Energy Healing For Animals

Not sure if this has already been said, but John Fisher completely turned his back on 'dominance theory' just before his death, and refuted everything he'd written about it.
Dominance is old news on several counts. If you want the whole unabridged reasoning, try John Bradshaw's new book "In Defence of Dogs" (titled "Dog Sense" in the USA).

Do you have any links where John Fisher refuted his own theory? I would like to read what he said, thanks

John Bradshaw -to prove that the dog-training model of the past few decades is flawed, based as it is on the premise that dogs are basically wolves with nicer table manners.-

I found that above from John Bradshaw (another john, I wonder if there is some strange condition going round people called John).

What he says above, if you read through the subtly, is not about dogs at all, it's a suggestion about the people who created the idea, as I just pointed out, it was John Fisher & John Rogerson who were promoting that/those ideas, others who were exposed to their ideas spread it on their behalf.

It has never been something people from the wider society of either dog trainers or the pet dog owning public even know about, let alone think about, I mean this chat room for a start off, it has a lot of members yet only a handful at most seem to be talking about John Fisher & John Rogersons theory, that's all it ever was, the only thing missing from the chats here so far is that this doniance theory under discussion is really the John Fisher Dominance theory and his dominance reduction program along with John Rogersons version, thas all it is or ever was.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jul/24/in-defence-of-dogs-review&sa=U&ei=2yhMTuLVHcG2hQe6x4H8Bw&ved=0CCAQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNH4ZraJwzL2lQNIstyqYMX85hrZmw

> Do you have any links where John Fisher refuted his own theory? I would like to read what he said, thanks

I don't, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. There are others on here more learned than I, who can point you in the right direction.

> It has never been something people from the wider society of either dog trainers or the pet dog owning public even know about, let alone think about, I mean this chat room for a start off, it has a lot of members yet only a handful at most seem to be talking about John Fisher & John Rogersons theory, that's all it ever was, the only thing missing from the chats here so far is that this doniance theory under discussion is really the John Fisher Dominance theory and his dominance reduction program along with John Rogersons version, thas all it is or ever was.

I think you will find that Dominance Theory spread far wider than that and far earlier, and the Two Johns - if I may call them that - were only utilising older theories. I disagree that Dominance theory is something only a few chat room people know about.... Haven't you ever watched any Cesar Millan shows on TV? There's a guy who, in a couple of years, has singlehandledly re-seeded the whole idea of dominance into a new generation and undone decades of hard work by more understanding behaviourists.

Haven't you ever watched any Cesar Millan shows on TV? There's a guy who, in a couple of years, has singlehandledly re-seeded the whole idea of dominance

I think ive read the name somewhere but I dont watch tv dog programs, i watched a little bit of something like that a few year ago but probably never finished it, but, from what you wrote its sounds like because of some tv exposure he just gave the John Fisher dominance reduction some publicity, if they attach a lable to something it helps promote them to their potential market, i mean dog trainer really doesnt sound like anything to sing & dance about but if you say you are this or that 'dominance reduction trainer' then you stand out from a crowd of 'dog trainers' as having something special to offer, thats why JF & JR started the commercial lables, all marketable products & services do the same, Jungian therapist, Adlerian therapist etc, 'muscle deceleration'  maseuse or 'flat palm' maseuse, dog training comes under the same kind of thing, 'dog training' means everything and nothing but a 'dominance reducation' trainer..well now you got a label amd make yourself different from the crowd & sell the concept, John Fisher was a buisnessman dont forget.

> John Fisher was a buisnessman dont forget.

A businessman with morals it would appear; when the premise upon which he based his dominance theory  - David L. Mech's behaviour of captive wolves was refuted by Mech himself - he did a U-turn. It takes a lot of moral fibre to do that. You rarely see a businessman decry their unique selling point if it means they will stop selling their original product.

There is plenty out there that backs all this up, on here and elsewhere. Many many, past arguments. I am happy with John Bradshaw (the Third John!) collating it all and putting it into an intelligible order... It was  time that someone did.

OK I understand you, so this dominant thing & dominance reduction thing is John Fishers legacy to pet owners, who he took on as clients, to put in context.

I understand itasbeing Conrad as the guy who first thought about ideas of pack leadership and he has long since held his hands upand said he got it wrong.

As for John Fisher/Rogerson, whilst they may have had ideas in a similar vein I have been to many of John R's seminars and never heard him talk in terms of pack theory. He breaks down what the dog may possibly be percieving and it seems to works. John boils it down to basics of what is actually happening and takes human emotion out of it, hard to do, and looks at the dog and what the dog is saying. Altough I think at times he alomost avoids dealing with some issues, I think he tackles what experience tells him can be put right and teaches management for what cannot be altered. Not a bad theory why persist if it upsets the dog?

I opened the discussion because whilst I don't believe it why does this theory still persist? Gut feeling is because people in the Tv world persist in selling it, it appears to work in TV world,we will never see those that failed. And it causes discussion which is good if we learn by it.